On 17.11.2025 17:50, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2025/11/12 12:46, Peter Haag wrote:
>> On 12.11.2025 12:29, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>>> will take a look, probably in a day or two. I don't see any need to
>>> split off ft2nfdump (and at this point I think I'd merge nfprofile so
>>> it's all in one package).
>>
>> The split off ft2nfdump was intended to have a small and clean nfdump package without any other dependancies.
>>
>> I would not recommend to merge nfprofile. It's legacy and will get dropped anyway in future. Furthermore
>> you pull too many uneeded packages due to the rrd depedancies for the majority of users, which do not
>> need nfprofile at all.
> 
> flow-tools is pretty tiny as far as dependencies go.
> 
> With this update libnffile pulls in rrd dependencies now anyway
> so I don't see a point in _not_ merging nfprofile?

That's because of the way the subpackage works. Maybe a flavour would be better and cleaner.
Because of the original Makefile used subpackages, I did not change that.
The librrd and those dependencies are only needed when building nfprofile. Separate builds
with different ./configure options would solve that. Maybe I can fix that in the nfdump
source to remove librrd from libnfdump and move those parts to nfprofile.

Yes - nfprofile is used for nfsen only and nowhere else. However, in future, there should
be a new NfSen and therefore it will be legacy anyway.

Anyway thanks for committing.

	- Peter

 > > Generally we only split into subpackages when dependencies are
> heavier than either of these.
> 
> Re dropping - nfprofile is needed for NfSen isn't it?
>